Notices by 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 134

@adidasJack

Well would you like me to help teach you? I think we should start with math.

Can you do basic addition and multiplication and such, how about algebra? can we skip that or shall we start there?

Lets figure out where to start and id be happy to start teaching you.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

I asked you to please stop tagging me if your intent is to convince me you are knolwedgable rather than an attempt to learn.

It is a waste of both are time. I will ask again do NOT tag me unless your intention is to begin studying and want some help or guidance.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

It seems clear to me that not only doou not know how to derive the equation, bur you dont even know what the word "derrive" means in this context.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@sda Can you please link to the actual study published in a peer reviewed paper then.

@adidasJack

No thats not correct, that is not a derivation.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@sda That link does not go to an article related to the link you posted.

@adidasJack

Why do you keep saying i avoid things that I very explicitly explain, usually in paragraph form.

No I answered the question, you just dont have enough education to have a base understanding to make sense of it.

the sad part is when you cant understand something you assume someone avoided your questions rather than trying to understand the explanation.

This isnt the first time. I haved answered many of your questions, usually multiple times over, yet you still pretend I did not.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@sda First off, link to the pubmed studies you feel were peer reviewed, in which case if they were we will see so. Not all studies on pubmed however are peer reviewed.

@adidasJack

Please no longer tag me (this is not a request).

If the day comes you wish to learn and become an educated individual who knows how these things really work, and you genuinely need or want my help, you are most welcome to reach out to me at that time.

For now though this only appears to be reinforcing your need to hide your lack of education or to convince yourself you understand things you do not. I will not be a party to that as it is harmful to both you and others to feed such behaviors.

If you have a change of heart and wish to learn reach out to me, or even if you just wish to talk as a friend (not about the psudo-science you share). But do not post me in this stuff otherwise, thank you.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@sda Sharing unpublished non-peer-reviewed studies in opposition to much higher quality studies that show the opposite is **not** science.

Moreover sharing this sort of wreckless propaganda puts children and people in danger. It is reckless and irresponsible of you IMO.

@adidasJack

It is not impolite to point out that a person who is uneducated, is in fact, uneducated. It isnt a judgment against you or your character, it is simply an obvious fact based on what you are saying, missing very basic points.

We wont get anywhere trying to pretend your educated on things you are not. The whole point of me engaging you was to help you gain education which has been neglected.

However if you claim to be educated, and perhaps I am mistaken. I am willing to accept that possiblity. That is why i asked you to show me how you derrive the equation for permiability of free space while explaining the steps you would use.

I asked you this so you have a chance to show us you do, in fact, understand basic concepts and may in fact be educated.

The stage is yours, show us you are educated on the topic, show us your understanding of the math.

As for you debunking PhD theories.. im sorry to say you **thinking** you debunked them doesnt mean you actually did. As I pointed out int he past it seems you are highly uneducated but very insecure about it and try to act as though you are educated. It would stand to reason as a result you also believe you are capable of debunking PhD's when you are not.

Again this is nothing intended to be rude, but it is something you need to realize if you want to start learning and grow past your lack of education, being in denial about it isnt helping you

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

You dont seem familiar, what you just said in no way even addresses what I just said.

What about the statement you just made proves that the Ether is real and is a substance rather than made up of a field?

If you think you are familiar with this stuff (you are not) lets talk with math then. Can you please start by showing me how you think the permeability of free space would be derived mathematically, and please describe the steps you take to calculate this. For there we can discuss as you do it why it disproves the ether.

Also you being able to show you have enough knowledge to derive these equations will demonstrate you are knowledgeable in the topic as you suggest.

The truth is you dont know these basics you try to speak on, it is very obvious based on the things your saying. I am doing my best to try to get you to feel less insecure about your own lack of education and to start down the path of learning, but you seem to be unwilling to do the hard work that would take to get there...

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

Also i explained, several times, why it is debunked. It was debunked because the speed you measure of waves traveling through space time (light) is the same regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

It is a field, it isnt made of a substance. It is made up of fields. At very small scales it can be said to be made up of the quantum foam, a collection of "virtual particles" that would be rather complex to explain at your current education level.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

This is really why you need to study the basics first, you totally miss the point as to what is meant by "the speed of light is a constant" .. that phrase is shortened from its full phraseology which is "The speed of light is a constant **in a vaccum**".

You have to understand what that means and why it is significant.

If i shoot a laser through a vacuum and measure its speed while standing still then the speed I measure will be the speed of light, C. However if i am moving int he same direction that the light is going at a very fast speed and then I measure the light again you'd expect the speed of light to appear to slow down when i measure it, but in fact the speed is measured to be the same.

Think about why this is special. If i throw a ball 10 mph in one direction then to you standing still it is going 10 mph.. however if you are running next to that same ball and you are moving 5mph yourself then the ball will appear to move at only 5mph, this is normal since its relative to your own speed.

Light however does not behave this way. No matter which way you point the laser or which way you are moving or how fast in a vacuum the speed of light will always be exactly the same.

This is the very reason why we can disprove that the light moves through any substance (ether), because if it did then it would move relative to the speed of the substance it moves through, which is not the case in a vacuum.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

You seem to be completely ignorant of what the word ether was originally used to mean..

You seem to think ether means "there is some underlying fabric or medium through which waves move". But that is **not** what an ether was proposed to be. It was proposed not as any generic medium but explicitly as a "substance" like water or air. That is critical to its definition and why it is so easily debunked.

Spacetime is a medium through which light waves (and other types of waves) travel, no doubt. But it is not a **substance** like water or air would be, thus why it is debunked. It is a field, and as such has some similarities but is also fundamentally different in nature than an ether.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@adidasJack

No it isnt my way or no way. I'm not even sure how you got that from what I said.

The ether was proposed originally as an underlying substance, like a gas or a liquid, which waves (light) could pass through. The idea of it as a substance is critical to its definition and what differentiates it from spacetime which is not a substance but rather a field.

This can trivially be proven (that an ether doesnt exist) by showing that the speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference and thus does not move respective to an underlying medium.

As to your other points: yes the earth has a magnetic field.

Yes the earths magnetic field moves and changes over time (though very slowly usually).

Changing magnetic fields also cause electric fields yes, they are relativistic duals of eachother and are closely related.

None of that makes any sense on your final assertion then that "we have an electromagnetic ether". What about the statements you just made suggest that it proves the existance of an ether (an underlying substance) instead of a field. It sounds like you dont understand the meaning of the words your using at all.

No nothing about "moving magnetic declination" has anything to do with ether, this makes literally no sense at any level and is very easily disproven, as I stated we can see that by the constant nature of the speed of light regardless of the speed the observer is moving at. Thus showing the speed of these waves are not bound to an underlying substance/medium but rather must act as a field instead.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@Karthikdeva One could argue that if two pugs choose to have sex that is them acting on their own free will. At least to the same extent as two humans having sex. In both cases it is an instinctual drive so much as it is a choice.

@adidasJack

No it doesnt use the ether, it specifically disproved the ether. It did however prove that space-time exists but it is a field, not a substance as the ether was suggested to be. This is the distinguishing difference between the two and why your statement is non-sensical.

Please, try to understand the subjects you post on first, or at least ask questions first rather than make up conclusions.

You can do what you want but please dont include me in psudo-science posts unless your purpose is to learn about the actual science. Otherwise I have no interest in the discussion if that is not the purpose.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

Pugs with breathing problems due to the results of breeding, and woman with large breasts unable to run pain-free without a bra are the result of effectively the same process.

So why is one immoral and not the other? Why do people vocally discourage people from breeding pugs or other dogs with breeding issues but you'd never hear anyone claim women with large breasts shouldn't have children?

I'm not suggesting anything here myself either way. I'm simply posing the question and would like to hear the reasoning each of you might apply to rationalizing this discongruity.